AT&T and Verizon have generally built fiber only where they face competition.

Share this story

You already knew that home broadband competition is sorely lacking through much of the US, but a new report released today helps shed more light on Americans who have just one choice for high-speed Internet.

Comcast is the only choice for 30 million Americans when it comes to broadband speeds of at least 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream, the report says. Charter Communications is the only choice for 38 million Americans. Combined, Comcast and Charter offer service in the majority of the US, with almost no overlap.

Further Reading

Yet many Americans are even worse off, living in areas where DSL is the best option. AT&T, Verizon, and other telcos still provide only sub-broadband speeds over copper wires throughout huge parts of their territories. The telcos have mostly avoided upgrading their copper networks to fiber—except in areas where they face competition from cable companies.

From the report, "Profiles of Monopoly: Big Cable and Telecom."

Institute for Local Self-Reliance

These details are in "Profiles of Monopoly: Big Cable and Telecom," a report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). The full report should be available at this link today.

“Market is broken”

"The broadband market is broken," the report's conclusion states. "Comcast and Charter maintain a monopoly over 68 million people. Some 48 million households (about 122 million people) subscribe to these cable companies, whereas the four largest telecom companies combined have far fewer subscribers—only 31.6 million households (about 80.3 million people). The large telecom companies have largely abandoned rural America—their DSL networks overwhelmingly do not support broadband speeds—despite years of federal subsidies and many state grant programs."

The ILSR report is based on the Federal Communications Commission's Form 477 data; ISPs are required to identify the census blocks in which they provide residential or business Internet service and the maximum speeds offered in each block.

The Form 477 data "overestimates actual broadband availability and ISPs' service areas," because it counts an entire census block as served even if an ISP offers service to just one resident in the block, the report notes. But the ILSR said it found no better alternative, and ISPs have resisted efforts to make the data more accurate.

Further Reading

The report includes deployment data for cable, fiber, DSL, and fixed wireless broadband. The report excludes satellite Internet "because the technology is highly dependent on terrain and weather, has very poor latency, and is often more expensive than terrestrial ISPs." Mobile broadband also is not included because the report focuses on home (or "fixed") Internet service, rather than smartphone coverage.

The most recent Form 477 data is from December 2016, so the numbers in this article aren't fully up to date. As we've reported, the data showed that 30 percent of developed census blocks have just one ISP offering speeds at least as fast as the FCC's broadband standard of 25Mbps downloads and 3Mbps uploads. In 13 percent of developed census blocks, there were zero providers offering speeds that fast.

Comcast and Charter

Comcast, the nation's biggest cable company and broadband provider, offers service to about 110 million people in 39 states and Washington, DC.

"All of these people have access to broadband-level service through Comcast Xfinity, but about 30 million of these people have no other option for broadband service," the ILSR wrote.

Comcast's broadband subscribers included 25.5 million households, or about 64.8 million people, based on the average US household size of 2.54 people.

From the report, "Profiles of Monopoly: Big Cable and Telecom."

Institute for Local Self-Reliance

From the report, "Profiles of Monopoly: Big Cable and Telecom."

Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Charter, the second biggest cable company after Comcast, offers service to 101 million people in 45 states. 22.5 million households covering about 57.2 million people were subscribing to Charter Internet, according to the numbers cited by the ILSR.

Like Comcast, Charter offers broadband-level speeds throughout its territory. "About 38 million [people in Charter territory] have no other option for broadband service," the report said.

Comcast and Charter generally don't compete against each other. They have a combined territory covering about 210 million people, yet the companies' overlapping service territory covers only about 1.5 million people, according to the Form 477 data cited by the ILSR. The overlap is mostly in Florida, where Charter purchased Bright House Networks, and may be overstated because an entire census block is counted as served even if an ISP offers service to just one resident in the block.

AT&T, Verizon, and other telcos

From the report, "Profiles of Monopoly: Big Cable and Telecom."

Institute for Local Self-Reliance

From the report, "Profiles of Monopoly: Big Cable and Telecom."

Institute for Local Self-Reliance

From the report, "Profiles of Monopoly: Big Cable and Telecom."

Institute for Local Self-Reliance

From the report, "Profiles of Monopoly: Big Cable and Telecom."

Institute for Local Self-Reliance

The numbers look a lot different when you switch from cable to DSL and fiber providers. AT&T is the biggest such provider, offering Internet service to 122.5 million people in 21 states. But nearly all of that is DSL or fiber-to-the-node, as AT&T was offering fiber-to-the-home to just 7.8 million people as of the December 2016 data, the ILSR report said.

The report continues:

About 53.7 percent of people (65.8 million) in the total service area have access to broadband-level service through AT&T. Of these people, 745,000 have no other option for broadband service. The data suggests that AT&T has almost exclusively upgraded its networks to offer broadband-level service only in areas where it faces competition.

In other words, AT&T has installed fiber or at least broadband-level speeds in many areas where it competes against cable companies, but it generally hasn't bothered to do so in areas without competition.

Verizon, meanwhile, offers Internet service to 55.2 million people. "The DSL service area covers 47.7 million people, but the FTTH (fiber-to-the-home) service area covers 33.3 million people," with significant overlap, the report said.

About 33.5 million people have access to broadband speeds from Verizon. Of those, "approximately 185,000 people have no other option for broadband service," the report says. "This means that FiOS has almost exclusively been deployed to areas where it faces cable competition." Verizon had 7 million households subscribing to its Internet service.

The report also covers CenturyLink and Frontier. CenturyLink offers Internet service to 49.1 million people, but its fiber-to-the-home service is only available to 3.8 million.

"About 47.9 percent of people (23.5 million) in the total service area have access to broadband-level service through CenturyLink and approximately 1 million people have no other option for broadband service," the report said.

CenturyLink's subscribers include about 5 million households covering about 12.7 million people.

Frontier's DSL service area covers 30 million Americans, while its fiber-to-the-home territory covers 10 million people.

"About 38.7 percent of people (12.6 million) in this service area have access to broadband-level service through Frontier," the report said. "Approximately 59,000 people have no other option for broadband service. These data suggest that Frontier has invested in faster services almost solely where it faces competition and not in more rural areas."

Promoted Comments

The government are clearly doing such a great job through all these mergers to ensure we have choice as a consumer. *sigh*

I didn't realize I was one of 68 million that are basically screwed and have to pay whatever I'm charged. Lobbying should be banned. FTC should step up and do their job and open up the markets forcefully.

Maybe we should do what the US had to do to ensure all households had electricity and water: Have the Federal Government build the infrastructure then let public utilities manage. Because this situation is no different then the expansion of those utilities were nearly a century ago, and the solution will ultimately be the same.

The government are clearly doing such a great job through all these mergers to ensure we have choice as a consumer. *sigh*

I didn't realize I was one of 68 million that are basically screwed and have to pay whatever I'm charged. Lobbying should be banned. FTC should step up and do their job and open up the markets forcefully.

Nevada is a good example of the problem here. Other than Last Vegas and Reno, you can't really get a decent internet connection anywhere in the state. How can cities do anything but die if they can't connect to the modern world?

This is why I am hoping SpaceX's StarLink and others work well. Rural areas will get served better, and it will drive more competition - outside of local jurisdictions and physical plant issues.

This is a utility and should be treated as such, but our current government will not fix it.

The flipside is that if that does work out and come to pass, it will be hailed as a free market success.

I don't think sat broadband will make companies invest in rural areas. It isn't worth the costs of maintaining. That's mostly why you need the govt to force their hand by mandating such investments if they want to get the profitable areas. But that's probably too Communist for some people.

This is why I am hoping SpaceX's StarLink and others work well. Rural areas will get served better, and it will drive more competition - outside of local jurisdictions and physical plant issues.

This is a utility and should be treated as such, but our current government will not fix it.

The flipside is that if that does work out and come to pass, it will be hailed as a free market success.

I don't think sat broadband will make companies invest in rural areas. It isn't worth the costs of maintaining. That's mostly why you need the govt to force their hand by mandating such investments if they want to get the profitable areas. But that's probably too Communist for some people.

I am not surprised. Why would the cable broadband providers spend a fortune building out the infrastructure to provide high speed internet to a few hundred people living out in the "sticks" ? (Pick any small town in the middle of rural America).

Not saying this is right or fair. Until a business model is formulated to provide an avenue to ROI on the infrastructure build out, they will continue to leave these swathes of the country barren in high speed connection options.

Unless a cheaper method of high-speed access is made widely available, potential customers will languish with little or no options.

I'm in one of those lovely areas where my provider is Charter, my neighbor ( on the corner ) apparently has Comcast but I can't get it being the second house on the side road (not that I want them) and AT&T and Verizon are somewhere within a quarter mile of my house. I'm actually in city limits, but near the edge of a 7k city.

I'm just glad that Charter is a good company overall in my area, with the exception of forcing me to pay more for 60 meg internet when 30 was plenty fast.

Maybe we should do what the US had to do to ensure all households had electricity and water: Have the Federal Government build the infrastructure then let public utilities manage. Because this situation is no different then the expansion of those utilities were nearly a century ago, and the solution will ultimately be the same.

Nevada is a good example of the problem here. Other than Last Vegas and Reno, you can't really get a decent internet connection anywhere in the state. How can cities do anything but die if they can't connect to the modern world?

I just checked the map a Nevada, there isn't anything outside of Reno and Vegas. :-)

This is why I am hoping SpaceX's StarLink and others work well. Rural areas will get served better, and it will drive more competition - outside of local jurisdictions and physical plant issues.

This is a utility and should be treated as such, but our current government will not fix it.

The flipside is that if that does work out and come to pass, it will be hailed as a free market success.

I don’t think the physics will work for anything that will require low latency. No voip or gaming. You’ll probably be able to browse and stream fairly well though. This won’t disrupt wired players but it will probably murder the existing sat internet providers.

Sadly, if a person lives in a rural area they are very fortunate if they have even one company to provide them with high-speed service. Out here our only option is Frontier and our DSL connection is slow. A few weeks ago Ajit Pai came out and made rounds talking with farmers and ranchers to learn how technology (or the lack thereof) affects what they do. Considering it's Pai I'm not holding my breath over anything positive coming out of it but just the fact he did was interesting in itself.

The key take away from this article is that competition spurs investment. In many cases it is stated and local boards that determine the amount of competition in an area. Many times they will only award a single contract.

Working to eliminate those single contract awards would do much to improve the service across the US.

On the federal level, support for research into non-traditional internet solutions would also help. Nor am I against adding a small rural surcharge to internet bills to pay for the research and implementation.

Nevada is a good example of the problem here. Other than Last Vegas and Reno, you can't really get a decent internet connection anywhere in the state. How can cities do anything but die if they can't connect to the modern world?

I just checked the map a Nevada, there isn't anything outside of Reno and Vegas. :-)

And this is why. Plenty of excellent roads, with I80 being in heavy use 24/7, endless cheap land, great cellular service, but no internet.

Nevada is a good example of the problem here. Other than Last Vegas and Reno, you can't really get a decent internet connection anywhere in the state. How can cities do anything but die if they can't connect to the modern world?

I just checked the map a Nevada, there isn't anything outside of Reno and Vegas. :-)

And this is why. Plenty of excellent roads, with I80 being in heavy use 24/7, endless cheap land, great cellular service, but no internet.

Nevada is a good example of the problem here. Other than Last Vegas and Reno, you can't really get a decent internet connection anywhere in the state. How can cities do anything but die if they can't connect to the modern world?

I just checked the map a Nevada, there isn't anything outside of Reno and Vegas. :-)

There's sand. Lots and lots of sand.

On a tech note, how good is that sand? Could it be used to make silicon wafers?

I would absolutely go back to FiOS. We had it for six years and never had any issues. Good value for the money, and symmetrical service. I moved about 45 minutes away and now our only option is Comcast. About once a week in the middle of the day we have a service disruption of 30 minutes. Less speed for the money, and they don't offer symmetrical service (only 10mbps upload max in my neighborhood, really?). On top of that, whenever FiOS had a service disruption (the two times in six years), we received a bill credit for the down time. Never see that from Comcast.

This is why I am hoping SpaceX's StarLink and others work well. Rural areas will get served better, and it will drive more competition - outside of local jurisdictions and physical plant issues.

This is a utility and should be treated as such, but our current government will not fix it.

The flipside is that if that does work out and come to pass, it will be hailed as a free market success.

I don't think sat broadband will make companies invest in rural areas. It isn't worth the costs of maintaining. That's mostly why you need the govt to force their hand by mandating such investments if they want to get the profitable areas. But that's probably too Communist for some people.

We see nothing wrong with letting the government build our roads and highways. Why not also our information superhighways?

This is why I am hoping SpaceX's StarLink and others work well. Rural areas will get served better, and it will drive more competition - outside of local jurisdictions and physical plant issues.

This is a utility and should be treated as such, but our current government will not fix it.

The flipside is that if that does work out and come to pass, it will be hailed as a free market success.

I don’t think the physics will work for anything that will require low latency. No voip or gaming. You’ll probably be able to browse and stream fairly well though. This won’t disrupt wired players but it will probably murder the existing sat internet providers.

The whole point of the LEO satellite constellation is to provide low-latency communications. It's supposed to be in the 25ms range.

My main concern with StarLink is the successful relaying of signals between the satellites and the ground stations, and the size/cost of the phased array antenna necessary for residential use.

Nevada is a good example of the problem here. Other than Last Vegas and Reno, you can't really get a decent internet connection anywhere in the state. How can cities do anything but die if they can't connect to the modern world?

I just checked the map a Nevada, there isn't anything outside of Reno and Vegas. :-)

And this is why. Plenty of excellent roads, with I80 being in heavy use 24/7, endless cheap land, great cellular service, but no internet.

Dude, there was nothing there much, much before the internet was even invented. Internet service wouldn't make a difference now. LOL

So I’m lucky enough to actually have two legit broadband options. I’m actually planning on switching from Verizon to Comcast next week. Am I making a terrible mistake?

Verizon stopped offering me promotional pricing and jacked my bill from ~$120 to ~$180, and Comcast is offering me a (theoretically) faster connection for ~$110 for a year and ~$130 for the second year (no data caps in my area - yet) The way I see it is that all ISPs are pretty much the same, and even if Comcast is a little more likely to screw me than Verizon, they’re not so much more likely to screw me to justify that price difference.

Verizon’s been fine, I guess. I’ve had Comcast before, and they were fine. I’m legit curious if any of you all would pay $60-70 a month just to not have Comcast.

This is why I am hoping SpaceX's StarLink and others work well. Rural areas will get served better, and it will drive more competition - outside of local jurisdictions and physical plant issues.

This is a utility and should be treated as such, but our current government will not fix it.

The flipside is that if that does work out and come to pass, it will be hailed as a free market success.

I don't think sat broadband will make companies invest in rural areas. It isn't worth the costs of maintaining. That's mostly why you need the govt to force their hand by mandating such investments if they want to get the profitable areas. But that's probably too Communist for some people.

We see nothing wrong with letting the government build our roads and highways. Why not also our information superhighways?

You kidding? The government doesn't want information to be easily transported.

Support the little guys. Stop assuming Google or some other giant benevolent entity will step in and fix this problem.

When you buy Comcast when there IS competition, you are part of the problem.

Having been on WISP, it's competition only in the loosest sense. Expensive, slow under ideal conditions, vulnerable to atmospheric and geographic conditions, etc. It's even worse if the ISP is using wireless backhaul, where atmospheric effects can compound.

It's better than nothing, but far from competitive. I'd use it at a fishing cabin or such, but if possible would avoid it at my residence.

Nevada is a good example of the problem here. Other than Last Vegas and Reno, you can't really get a decent internet connection anywhere in the state. How can cities do anything but die if they can't connect to the modern world?

I just checked the map a Nevada, there isn't anything outside of Reno and Vegas. :-)

And this is why. Plenty of excellent roads, with I80 being in heavy use 24/7, endless cheap land, great cellular service, but no internet.

I mean, it's also a literal nuclear wasteland...

Yeah, but there's plenty that isn't and is very nice. Just the area along the I80 corridor (hundreds of miles from the test range) is larger than quite a few entire states.

This is why I am hoping SpaceX's StarLink and others work well. Rural areas will get served better, and it will drive more competition - outside of local jurisdictions and physical plant issues.

This is a utility and should be treated as such, but our current government will not fix it.

The flipside is that if that does work out and come to pass, it will be hailed as a free market success.

I don't think sat broadband will make companies invest in rural areas. It isn't worth the costs of maintaining. That's mostly why you need the govt to force their hand by mandating such investments if they want to get the profitable areas. But that's probably too Communist for some people.

Ironically, it's too Communist for the people that would greatly benefit from that happening.

This is why I am hoping SpaceX's StarLink and others work well. Rural areas will get served better, and it will drive more competition - outside of local jurisdictions and physical plant issues.

This is a utility and should be treated as such, but our current government will not fix it.

The flipside is that if that does work out and come to pass, it will be hailed as a free market success.

I don't think sat broadband will make companies invest in rural areas. It isn't worth the costs of maintaining. That's mostly why you need the govt to force their hand by mandating such investments if they want to get the profitable areas. But that's probably too Communist for some people.

No but it should provide better service in rural areas where the choice is DSL or geo-synch satellite. Also, it should provide more competition in urban areas with only one or two (cable and DSL) providers.